User talk:Shimeru

Welcome to my talk page. If you leave me a message here, I will respond here. If I leave a message on your talk page, you may respond there; I'll be watching it. I prefer to have the entire conversation in one place; it makes it easier to follow. Also, if you leave a message here, please do not subsequently edit it except for grammar, spelling, link correction, and similar technical aspects. Thank you.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Lester

I respectfully ask did you actually review the page before you deleted it on the vote? The deleters no doubt have been around for a long time but the do not seem to have taken the time to look into the entry itself and just taking a follow the leader atitude i.e. "as per nom" etc. I had put in new links that showed the status of Denise Lester as a renowed professonal, who though UK based is called by both uk & US tv Networks and other media to answer questions on British law and how it affects other countries etc she is acting in a profession capacity which is held up before the Law Society for conduct etc, we were also in the process of locating government documents that she has worked on that pass into LAW passed by the British Parliament. As a secondary note I do not know who actually put the page up but were impressed with the general accuracy and only having to make some minor edits and additions. So in my opinion the deletion was to quick and unnecssary, is it possible to reinstate the page/disscusion so a more thoughtful disscussion could take place . Regards a disappointed new user who is trying to make a difference. Lvadmaker (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Shimeru I left a message on my talk page, asking for you to reistate the denise lester page to my space, not sure if you have seen it yet? Lvadmaker (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GiftWorks

Hello, I had created a page for my company, GiftWorks Software. Everything on the page was strictly factual and informative (non-advertising), yet you chose to delete it. Is there a way to get this back?

Thank you

Re: The Catalyst Schools

Thank you for clarification and please understand that I am trying to learn the best way to communicate with you on this. Forgive me if there are any errant comments on your Talk page or otherwise.

The Catalyst Schools are our client. They have employed us to build a website for them, generate copy for that website, and subsequently generate a Wikipedia article entry for them. How can we best prove to you that we not only generated this content, but are acting as representative of TCS in generating this page?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite

With cogent rationales for deletion from six established editors (including the nominator), there was a consensus to delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite. Of the three who supported retention, only one was an established editor, with the other two being an IP and a new user. Would you undo your relisting and close the debate? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras

Thank you so much for your decision to allow my article to be kept. It has been such a valuable tool for the establishment of my career to date, and has led to a interviews, and other opportunities, that I previously did not have access. Just wanted to express my personal thanks for your decision, and I thank you so much for your support. Adam kontras (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

This is not the sort of statement that inspires confidence regarding your motives. Anyway, a 'no consensus' is a little different from a consensus to keep. Both keep the article on the site, but the former is a weaker case than the latter. I wouldn't be surprised if the article were reconsidered later, unless some more solid sources can be found. Shimeru (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Appologies, was just excited that I survived. Maybe the noteability issue will not be such an issue next time around if I can get enough publicity out of this, I know it has worked so far, that is all I was saying. Adam Kontras 21:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam kontras (talk • contribs)

Could you possibly relist my page for further discussion, I would love to not go through the last week again, in fear of losing it. Thanks Adam Kontras 19:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam kontras (talk • contribs)

Since you requested it, done. I hope that this discussion will prove a little less... unusual than the previous one. Shimeru (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is actually going to wind up being even more "unusual", as I am inclined to believe that User:Adam kontras is actually a sockpuppet operated by Charles Groves, the person who caused all the vandalism and distractions in the last AfD nomination. Comparing the tone and language of this user's edits to those made by the many other accounts known to be operated by Charles Groves would make this rather clear. Keep in mind that the only account known to actually be operated by Adam Kontras was User:Adam4tvs, and that that account was banned for supposedly having a self-promotional name (a notion which I disputed on the talk page of the user who did the drive-by ban). —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 02:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

This is possible. So far, though, it hasn't affected the discussion. If you feel you have solid evidence, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations is an option. Shimeru (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru, I am in the process of contacting the FBI in a cyber-stalking case with Charles Groves. He is the one who contacted you, not me. I'm more than exhausted however that no one here takes even a moment to do a tiny bit of research on the matter. You can see from the previous deletion that "Adam4tvs" was blocked and I was given a new username: Adam Kontras. Charles took the name Adam kontras, with a lowercase "k" to impersonate me and continue to harass me. Please close this and let it come up on it's own merits. If there was no consensus last week, there will be no consensus this week. More time has to pass.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Also - just check the ip address of the lowercase "kontras". It's not coming from California where I live, it's coming from Virginia, where the stalker, Charles Groves lives. If you can't do this, I guess I can force the lawyers at wikipedia to subpoena his IP address. As he is crossing state lines to impersonate me, this is a federal issue. Again, please take down the deletion and allow it to rise and fall on its own merits. Nothing has changed to warrant a 3rd nomination.Adam Kontras (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Wikipedia editors do some research before assuming that the subject of a Wikipedia page has nominated it for deletion? You're opening the door to all kinds of abuse on the site if you establish this sort of precedent.--Bradcwriter (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

DRV for Keyontyli Goffney

I have started a DRV for this subject article. Since you are the closing admin, I am informing you so that you can be involved in the process. Silverseren^C 21:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion FiveBooks

Hi there I saw when I came back to this discussion that FiveBooks was already deleted, but one of the criticisms was that although there was a reference in a national magazine to FiveBooks, that they weren't really interested in the interviewer, just in the interviewee, so that didn't make FiveBooks notable. I think it's a pretty unfair criticism of a media type operation, as I said before you could say no one is interested in the New York Times, only its stories, but just to address that criticism, here is another reference that I could just have easily have mentioned: http://press.princeton.edu/blog/2010/03/09/five-books/

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstephmay (talk • contribs) 11:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Review Alex Hilton

Strangely for a deletion review, I'm not particularly bothered about the deletion, though I think I have achieved more than an unsuccessful boxer with a criminal history of violence. "Not notable" is a harsh way of putting it but I'm pretty thick skinned and can cope. To be fair there was a lot of nonsense on there from time to time, including information about me being married when I was not and about me being Paris Hilton's cousin, which is ridiculous.

However, the deletion came to my attention because voters in Chelsea & Fulham have started getting in touch with me with varying degrees of confusion over whether I am a criminal ex-boxer from Canada. This really is an unnecessary distraction and if you would like to undelete me temporarily until May 7th, that might save me some complicated correspondence.

Anyway, up to you. Feel free to email or phone me if you want to discuss it further

Alex Hilton, alexhilton@gmail.com, 07794 771 113 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexhilton2010 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Catalyst Schools

Can you please send me the text that you deleted so that I may rebuild the page according to the wikipedia guidelines? I simply spent hours on this and in seconds you deleted the entry. If you could please help me out by sending me the text, or restoring the page that would be great.

I would appreciate any sort of response as you have stopped responding on my talk page.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poccuo (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

errm

thanks, but you still did not answer on what I wrote:

" I've written a short article about the number 46175.

"Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject."

I disagree. This number has nothing directly to do with a person, with a group of people, with a band, with a club or a company. It's just a short description, cause I've read a lot of questions about this and since I know it I wanted to put that in here.

The only thing that missed, were the reference links, but as you maybe know on 4chan there is nothing saved so.. Also it maked no sense to have any contents on that, cause it's pretty short.

would appreciate if you bring it back somehow, cause the reason is really bad. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metactyl (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. It is, however, web content. There was no assertion of its importance, and there are, as you say, no references. It is, basically, something somebody made up one day. Current policy is to exclude such material.

You might try Urban Dictionary instead. Shimeru (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your significant contribution to the progress of the London Victory Parade of 1946. I have been hoping to get more, at least medium-term, input there from an objective veteran editor such as yourself. Particularly over the last 6 weeks. Any chance you could spare some time ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite again

Did you miss my comment at User talk:Shimeru#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. A. Waite? The debate has been relisted again despite the clear consensus to delete. Would you close this AfD? Cunard (talk) 06:18, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Seems it's already been closed as a deletion. Shimeru (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

We Are The In Crowd- please review deletion

Hello,

I'd like to request the page for We Are The In Crowd to be reviewed and restored. They were deleted for not being a notable band. However, they are signed to a reputable label, tour nationally on large tours, have releases on Amazon and iTunes, and are covered regularly in national print and online press. They are also endorsed by major companies like Fender and Ernie Ball. Below are a few of the links covering the band.

Hopeless Records
Absolute Punk (all posts tagged with "We Are The In Crowd"
Punknews.org
AntiMusic
Fender
Fearless Radio
iDobi Radio interview
AltSounds
Vans Blog
Puregrainaudio

There is a lot more coverage, but hopefully the above will help you reconsider.

Thank you!

Jafee1977 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Denise lester page

Shimeru could you please copy the deleted article to a subpage of my user page, so I could continue working on the article to prepare it for relisting in the future. Regards Lvadmaker (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Shimeru (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne

I notice this closure appears to ignore multiple opinions. You appear to have substituted your judgement for that of the individuals evaluating. Can you convince me you did not do so? Hipocrite (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Can you tell me more precisely what you think I'm ignoring? Shimeru (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You stated "On the strength of the improvements so far; objections appear to have been addressed." Could you show me where that statement was made on the AFD page, or was that your judgement of the "improvements" to the vandispamcruftment? Hipocrite (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that was my judgement, yes. If objections are founded on WP:CORP, and reliable sources that meet WP:CORP are found, then it seems to me that those objections no longer apply, no? Now, some of the sources might be questionable, but I think the Grand Rapids Press, the Muskegon Chronicle, the New York Times, the court documents, the South Africa Daily Sun, and Claudia Gross's book are probably independent reliable sources for our purposes. Do you disagree? Shimeru (talk) 21:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

Don't know if I'm doing this right (rubbish with computers)... I see you've deleted the page about me (James Bibby) - any reason why?

Jim (email jimbibby@btinternet.com)

According to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Bibby. The primary factor was the absence of independent reliable sources to support an article. Also see WP:BLP. Shimeru (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Croatia–Mongolia relations

As the admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination), I wonder if you'd be willing to comment on this. If I'm out of line in removing the box discussed in that thread, please let me know. Conversely, if you think the use of the box was improper, then I'd appreciate you letting the editor who used it know. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that I'd say 'improper'... it's a bit odd, and not particularly helpful, but there's no policy against it that I'm aware of. I can say that I don't assign any more credence to it than I would a regular text comment -- in fact, it risks the opposite. I will note that it's not an established individual template, but rather the general-purpose Template:Ambox, so TfD isn't exactly an option. It is rather close to the template deleted at TfD in 2009, though.

Even so, editing someone else's comments in an AfD discussion is probably not a good idea.

I see you've approached the editor in question about it and been brushed off. If it's a serious concern for you, then WP:RFC/U might be an option. However, I might suggest first broaching the issue at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion, to see what the general feeling about the issue is. Shimeru (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion seems like a good a venue to take this up at. I may just do that. Thanks. Yilloslime ^T_C 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please reopen the Croatia–Mongolia relations AfD. None of the Keep voters could point to any sources, and AfD is not a vote. Abductive (reasoning) 04:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are sources in the article itself. They seem to be both independent and, at least in some cases, reliable. Can you explain in more detail why you feel this is not the case?

Also, as you're probably aware, 'no consensus' -- though it defaults to keep -- is not the same as 'keep.' An actual keep closure represents a consensus to keep the article. I saw no such consensus -- but also no consensus to delete the article at this time. I suspect it may well end up at AfD again in the future. Shimeru (talk) 07:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

One has to understand that the topic of the article is what needs sources. Compare, for example, Nigeria/France relations. Entire books have been written on the topic. You have mistaken primary sources for secondary sources. The definition of secondary source is that the source analyzes the topic. Per WP:PSTS, a lack of analysis by secondary sources means that the topic fails WP:N and therefore must be deleted. Any other outcome is vote counting. Abductive (reasoning) 07:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I sympathize with that view, actually. (I wish we were more rigorous about sources, but that doesn't seem to be consensus.) I would need more time to go through the sources in depth and make that determination; I may not have time to do so for a couple of days. But even then, I'd feel compelled to list it again, rather than re-opening the now-closed AfD. With a no-consensus, there's nothing preventing rapid reconsideration of the article. In the meantime, I suppose the supporters will have their opportunity to strengthen the article further. If nothing significant happens, that might be telling in itself. Shimeru (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I see from your vote in the above discussion that you see my point. "All high schools are notable" -- regardless of quantity or quality of sources. Just so, there are those who say all bilateral relations between two countries are inherently notable. On what grounds do we deny that, if quantity and quality of sources are irrelevant? Once we've discarded sourcing, there is only consensus, and if consensus is to keep despite sourcing issues... well. You know. Shimeru (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD: Sticks_and_Stones_(band)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sticks_and_Stones_(band). There was quite a bit of information in the article, if I recall. (Of course the problem with deletion is that none of the rest of us can see.) Giving it time to be merged into the article of the notable bandmember is presumably more productive. There were only three responses, after all. - BalthCat (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've undeleted the page (for now) and reopened the AfD, since I hadn't seen the relist. (Bit of an edit conflict there.) I'm not so sure your proposed merge target is notable by Wikipedia's guidelines, but you'll have some extra time to find reliable sources and merge information. Shimeru (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination)#Relisting?

Please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Croatia–Mongolia relations (2nd nomination)#Relisting?. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey show

Are you certain about this? (the subject of this article makes my cringe but someone's gotta ask :) The snout count was split but as we both know we don't count snouts. However, Owenx does make a good point. It also would have been helpful if someone else besides a banned editor's sock mentioned those alleged new sources.

IMHO there's enough reasonable doubt here for "no consensus". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably so, yes. But after looking through the sources mentioned in the article, I didn't see anything reliably sourced that could lead to an article of any length. Given that the majority of the history of the article consists of listings of trivia (the infamous 'in popular culture' section) or outright vandalism, and that there don't seem to be any sources of substance, I decided to lean toward deletion this time. Shimeru (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My first impression is that this was similar to Cow tipping. Something that everybody knows about but nobody can verify it actually happens. Shame we can't redirect it to WP:AN/I. Plenty of asses being shown there :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. ^_- Shimeru (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

USERFY PLEASE! riffic (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're going to need to show me some sign that you have reliable sources, first. Sorry, but it's hard to assume good faith when your user page reads "Deletionism is a cancer." Shimeru (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have successfully rescued articles in the past through userfication. if you don't like what my userpage says, maybe it is you who is not acting in good faith. riffic (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Really? Please, do explain. Shimeru (talk) 02:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to find which specific articles have been userfied after deletion to be brought up to standards, but I've worked on at least more than one of these. consider it a hobby of boredom. riffic (talk) 02:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

btw I'm looking on google book search for some references now. I'll return in a bit riffic (talk) 02:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been busy but I'm making decent progress finding references for this phenomena, I'll return later. riffic (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

over zealous

Why would you mark a school article for deletion? I have to ask, cuz you didn't have the courtesy to explain it in the talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.128.54 (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You could always read the AfD... Shimeru (talk) 07:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems he has nothing to worry about. Currently it's snowing over there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I rather expected as much. One day, though, I'm fairly optimistic school articles will be held to the same standard as the rest. Perhaps after some newspaper finds one in a horribly embarrassing state after a round of the vandalism they continually attract. Then again, I suppose that's less newsworthy than the same happening with a BLP. Shimeru (talk) 02:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

EVER TEAM Page Deleted

Hi, I would like to know why you deleted my page?? i was debating with several persons and reading their comments, and preparing an update to this page. Now i have to do everything again from scratch?? please help. Note: I do not accept my page being deleted for the third time, especially that I am working on enhancing it, and I am ready to do whatever it takes to have it back again online! i strongly disagree with you deleting it and i do not see at all that other competitor pages are written any better. i request that you put it back again online... thank you--Sazarian (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sazarian has also posted about this to my talk page, and I have made a reply there. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

That's an excellent response, and I agree. I'll add that I'm able to userfy the article if it's desired. Let me know if you'd like it moved to your user space, Sazarian. As JamesBWatson says, though, it would be best if you had strong sources in advance. Shimeru (talk) 19:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Once i gather these references, i will ask you to usefy my page.--Sazarian (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant

If you take a closer look, most of those "sources" were from places like lewrockwell.com and other far-right websites. I still think it was a delete, and a mere "look at the Googlehits" is not an argument of any weight IMAO. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible, I guess, but C-Span and the Denver Post are pretty reliable sources. Besides, there's no policy that sources have to be neutral -- only that they're independent, and that the article itself is neutral. So right-leaning sources wouldn't necessarily be disqualified. Shimeru (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Money (Michael Jackson song)

No attempts were made to merge the info that was in this article whatsoever. IF it is going to be redirected, merge it like you said —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.54.202 (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to merge it yourself. I'd be more inclined to help out if you'd asked politely. Or if you hadn't come here only after three attempts to recreate the article contrary to the AfD discussion. Or if you'd used your user account... but I suppose that'd be hard to do while you're blocked. For the record, circumventing a block is not okay. Shimeru (talk) 02:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Shimeru. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion review for Donkey show

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Donkey show. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

And my apologies for !voting to overturn. I was satisfied with your answer but since somebody else decided to file the DRV I felt compelled to chime in with my opinion. However, endorse or overturn, I still think the close was within admin's discretion.

A bit of advise though, (consider this a minnow not a trout). The next time you're in a similar situation with a close AFD, (you examine the article yourself and look for sources) that you !vote not close. Then when another admin closes "delete", the decision will be more DRV resistant. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I don't much care about that. I close enough AfDs not to take it personally when one gets DRVed. Shimeru (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pet naming

This close seems improper as there was no clear consensus for the result which you have stated. Please reconsider. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've reviewed it, but will stand by my decision. I do think the section of the Personal name article could use expansion via sources, though, and it's quite possible that, if so many sources exist, it will grow large enough to re-split later. Shimeru (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bibby

Why did you delete the entry for James Bibby? 88.2.162.136 (talk) 15:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)